Did they attack the UK? Did the terrorists attack Australia? NO! They attacked us! Yes, we tried to control all these countries, and so they attacked us. We keep forcing our opinions on others. We're not spreading liberty, we're spreading Socialism and Force!
Ron Paul has many valid points, but Bob Scheiffer hits one really good point: WHAT HAPPENS TO THE NATIONAL PARKS? Ron Paul says "WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LOT OF THAT LAND SOLD OFF"
MY QUESTION IS: does that mean parts of the grand canyon national park, yellowstone national park, sequoia national park, and other national parks will be SOLD? and to who? Lands that have been preserved for decades or centuries will possibly be DESTROYED? Stay away from my national parks Ron Paul.
Bob Scheiffer is ridiculous stating that "the US government has not said it has plans to bomb Iran" as if it is a valid rebuttle of Ron Paul's argument. The US government is not going to say it's going to bomb Iran until it actually proposes to bomb Iran. However, those seeking major policy making offices have said they want to bomb Iran. While the government can be symbolized as an out of control monster, in reality it's these people making the decisions.
@urautubeloser1 Very well said. Bob Schieffer made a fool of himself here and revealed his blatant bias against Congressman Paul. I am writing CBS tomorrow about this. Maybe Schieffer can enroll in an introductory journalism course at a community college in the NYC area---He needs in-service training!
Wow! Look & listen to Bob Schieffer baiting & provoking Ron Paul, & putting words in his mouth. Bob's tone, blatant baiting, and questions sound like they were scripted by a combination of Leon Panetta, Goldman-Sachs, Boeing, & Lockheed-Martin. Schieffer is under orders here to intimidate and provoke Ron Paul, but Paul defends himself well. I have lost ALL RESPECT for Bob Schieffer---It is real clear who pulls his strings! Schieffer apparently does not understand that the Fed gov is insolvent.
Ron Paul continues to school the (m)ass media, answering every question with logic, truth, and integrity. Some of the other media tools Dr. Paul has embarrassed are Wolf Blitzer, Bill O'Reilly, and Chris Wallace. These questions, meant to ridicule Dr. Paul's stands, are actually good for Americans to hear. He has a reputation as "Dr. NO" in the District for Corruption, voting against many of the pork bills and other schemes that politicians come up with.
Searching the video I am posting below will tell you everything you need to know about Bob Schieffer and his despicable excuse for journalism. After no more than 20 seconds Schieffer cut him off and sent it back to Dan Rather.
Search YouTube: CBS - Senator cut off in the middle of 9/11 prior knowledge discussion
Bob Schieffer is the older brother of Tom Schieffer, a friend and former business partner of President George W. Bush, who was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Australia by President Bush and also served as U.S. Ambassador to Japan.
@AntiTroll101 Keep drinking that lamestream news kool-aid. Have fun voting for more of the same! I will be laughing when our currency is worth nothing, nothing that people like you voted for the next crook. HAHAHAHA. Later.
Dr. Paul slapping him around. Like the energy. Just like to say that the international support of Ron Paul is much appreciated. Trying to peg him as an isolationist is much harder when you show your support. Keep it up. much love from America!!!
Ummm... at 8:10... did NO ONE ELSE just hear this man say "we would like to see a lot of land selled (sold) off"?!?!?! He wants to SELL OFF OUR NATIONAL PARKS?! I think Bob Schieffer did a GREAT job interviewing him. And, this isn't a debate, he doesn't get some "final statement" folks... Schieffer asked good questions, and due to the quick nature of the program would stop him when he had answered them. Again... THIS MAN WANTS TO SELL OFF OUR NATIONAL PARKS... WHAT?!?!?!?!?! Crazy. Period.
@nessamaine He's nuts. He thinks having nuclear weapons means we just don't even need a military, and if we need to defend ourselves we just push a button and annihilate a country. I know he didn't exactly say that, but that's essentially the attitude. I'm sorry but if anybody thinks solutions to the worlds problems are as easy as he paints it, they need to lay off the drugs.
@WallStwizkid Amen & AMEN. Thank you. Don't know what disturbs me more, listening to his "ideas" or knowing that there are folks out there who actually think that he makes sense. Yipes. Thanks for the positive reply. I'm sure not everyone will agree with us. LOL. Oh, well... Here's to fighting the good fight, eh? Peace.
@nessamaine Ugh I don't even know where to begin. You're like an oasis in the desert on youtube. I sincerely hope these kids are either too young to vote, or do not speak for the majority. These simple minded ideas are dangerous. I just quit a self-assigned PR campaign on youtube in defense of the industry I'm employed in, finance. Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and go back to the gold standard. I've been wasting my time telling people how dangerous that is.
@nessamaine He's a libertarian and libertarians believe in an imaginary market fairy that swoops in to save the day and restore equilibrium to the market. That just doesn't happen, and the Great Depression is a prime example of that. The Federal Reserve at the time could not extend credit due to the gold standard, and if the so called market fairy existed, it would have induced demand as prices dropped. That didn't happen, the market crashed. He's dangerous. I hope he's not nominated
@nessamaine I could rattle off terms like "Demand deficient unemployment" to Ron Paul supporters, and it's just in one, out the other, and back to some anti-Federal Reserve rhetoric. The economy needs to be navigated through a central banking influence. We've been there, done that, his theories are a century old. Classical economics has been replaced by Keynesian models. Most of the inflation experienced is not even supply side. His theories are crap. I hope you have a good holiday.
@WallStwizkid Can't tell your politics, but you're sensible! I think THAT's where most folks are in our country...SENSIBLE... GOOD Government is the only way. GREAT to hear sense spoken! Years ago, 2003, I visited my Grandma (93 then), & she had the TV on w/ the sound down & GW Bush flashed on the "tonight on the news" thing... She said simply, "That kid is ruining our country. It's what happened in '29 all over again..." She NEVER talked politics, but she LIVED then & she knew. Sad. Thanks!
@nessamaine I don't really have a political affiliation. I usually hate talking politics, or getting involved in elections, but it kind of breaks down like this. I'm left wing on almost every issue except economics. I hated that too, because I couldn't stand some of the things republicans stood for. But, my job was important and I felt republicans had a more sound economic policy (except this guy). I felt the economy needed a central banking influence, and a gov. influence on fiscal policy.
@nessamaine I thought that was a perfect balance. We have monetary policy handled by a central bank, who is also the bank of the U.S. Treasury. We had the gov. controlling fiscal policy, as they should, since tax policy entitles a value to treasury securities which is one of the main instruments in creating money. But that was it, I thought it should be private industry, but not completely. I'm beginning to change my views though, because if this guy gets nominated, I'm for Obama.
@nessamaine My main issue was, I was against centralization of industry. I embraced Capitalism, and I felt the only rational pricing method was free pricing that starts from investments into capital goods. If it was centralized, the state would move capital goods through a system as objects with no value. This in turn would result in labor value pricings, and I was against socialism. Now I'm at the point where I feel Obama is the better candidate regardless.
@nessamaine Ron Paul is just too crazy with this free market idea, and it just doesn't work. He's definitely well versed in textbook economics, I can tell. Textbook libertarian economics sound so great, but it's unrealistic, even dangerous, because the world is not that simple. The economy needs a central bank and a treasury that function the way they currently function. I have to get going, but it was nice talking to you..I'll send you a friend request later on.
@WallStwizkid " The economy needs a central bank and a treasury that function the way they currently function."
Too bad this statement is SO WRONG on so many levels. Central banking has been the driving force creating boom and bust cycles wiping out the middle class and moving the wealth up to the rich. America got rid of it 3 times before. You've heard of the term "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer"? Well, THAT'S HOW THEY DO IT.
@mickeysears Look, I'm done talking about this on here. I don't need to read a conspiracy book, I've been working in finance for 8 years and went to school for it. What you just said is completely backwards, the gold standard saw boom and bust business cycles. You're taking recovery conditions from the financial crisis, which was not a natural event, and labeling it as a characteristic of fiat systems, exactly what Ron Paul does.
@WallStwizkid " I don't need to read a conspiracy book"
Yes I know, a conspiracy book that names names and specific dates and actual laws and policies that then show results.
" I've been working in finance for 8 years and went to school for it."
You should sue your professors, all liberal progressives, I presume.
Gold standard saw boom and busts only in the natural law of supply and demand and lasted a short time. It wasn't until The Fed that we made busts last for a decade or more.
@mickeysears What's wrong on so many levels is that you Ron Paul supporters on the internet think you know economics by reading a book he put out, or some other conspiracy theory manual. People that actually have experience in this just laugh and shake our heads at this. What you just said completely contradicts the supply glut caused by industrialization in the 19th century, which resulted in a deflationary spiral that crashed the market.
@WallStwizkid So a supply glut created in the 19th century created a deflationary spiral crashing the market?
Supply gluts in the 1800's caused the 1929 crash? I hope that's not what you mean. That sounds so stupid. We had a crash in 1920 caused by over spending and over production during WW1 by the government. The 1929 fall was created by easy money and credit policies that pushed prices in real estate and stocks to unsustainable levels leading to a crash.
@mickeysears You're really confused. There was a supply glut in the late 19th century. How could inflation lead to the depression, when the Fed contracted the money supply before the depression. Do you know what deflation is? It means prices keep dropping lower and lower. How could prices rise before the great depression when it was a deflationary spiral lol you have no idea what you're talking about.
@WallStwizkid I'm cunfused? I think you have that wrong. "How could inflation lead to the depression, when the Fed contracted the money supply before the depression"?
That's a standard procedure to artificially create the boom and bust. First they have an easy monetary and credit policy to push prices up. (Inflation can ONLY HAPPEN WHEN THE MONEY SUPPLY IS INCREASED). Then The Fed tightens (by increasing the reverse rate in the fractional reserve system of central banking)
@mickeysears You're defending gold, and at the same time you're saying we had "easy money and credit" while we were still on the gold standard. Lol you're really confused. I don't even think you know what you're saying. Yes, industrialization started in the late 19th century. How could there be "easy credit" when money was gold receipts. The only recession risks under current policy come from speculative asset bubbles. It's only happened twice.
@mickeysears One bubble was dot-com which wasn't a big deal. The second was housing which lead to the financial crisis in 2008. That was NOT a natural event. It was caused by exemptions from capital restrictions on banks with $5bill. or more in tentative net capital, which increased leverage for those banks, and speculation on derivatives which underestimated liquidation risks. Nothing to do with monetary policy. That was the SEC mainly, not the Fed. You're confused dude.
@WallStwizkid The housing crisis in 2008 was caused by forced low interest rates, easy monetary policy, and a CRA law that allowed too many people to buy homes they didn't normally qualify for. I'm in real estate. When you have too many people trying to buy too few homes, prices get pushed up. Builders then take out low cost loans to over produce over priced new homes. The result is a housing collapse. All the Fed is trying to do now is to reinflate a popped balloon. It can't be done.
@mickeysears It lead to the financial crisis, that's what I said. I never explained anything about how the housing bubble was caused because that wasn't the point. Capital restriction exemptions increased leverage for bulge-bracket banks, and these excesses lead to the bailouts. Most of the counter-party risk European banks faced on credit-based hedge funds lead to illiquid inter-bank lending markets in Europe.
@mickeysears What you're saying makes no sense whatsoever. Do you even know how gold standards work? Notes are gold receipts. This means it's easier to contract the money supply, not so easy to expand it. That's because it's reliant on gold excavation. Like I said, inflation existed during the gold rush, which is about as old as Ron Paul's thinking. The Federal Reserve at the time could have easily contracted the money supply, which they did, and the market crashed.
@mickeysears They should've inflated the money supply, but couldn't. You're either getting things mixed up, or you're reading really crappy sources. I've even debated legitimate libertarian economists who agree that contraction caused the crash, because that's what happened, it's fact. Even a libertarian can't deny it.
@WallStwizkid I don't think you read too well. I've already said that contraction caused the crash. But we couldn't have a contraction until we first had the inflation. And both were perpetrated by the same people in The Fed. They created the easy policy monetary policy until it was time to contract. That's the problem. Now all boom and busts cycles will be both artificial and controlled.
@mickeysears The Fed accepted mortgage-backed securities as bailout collateral as well. Anyway, the Federal Reserve hasn't held gold since 1934. At $8.3trill. in the M2 money supply, that's already more than the value of all the gold that's ever been mined, which is 142,000 metric tons. South Africa holds half of the worlds un-mined gold, so gold standards would shift economic dominance to countries like them. Not to mention it would end current applications that use gold.
@WallStwizkid "The Fed accepted mortgage-backed securities as bailout collateral as well" Yes but only the favored banks like Goldman Saks, JP Morgon Chase, etc. And they were able to simply print money,( at interest and at taxpayers expense) to cover any losses,
"the Federal Reserve hasn't held gold since 1934" WRONG!!!! The Fed has more gold in the basement of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York than it what is believed held at Fort Knox in it's hayday. Even Bernanke admits that.
@mickeysears I don't know where you get your facts from, but I'd like to see the chairman admitting that, send me a link. They went on the record stating they haven't held gold since 1934. The only time central bankers discuss gold it's in regards to selling. They use it as a currency hedge then they dump it. And I never said it was from all banks. My original statement regarded banks in $5bill. and up club, not mid market and community banks.
@WallStwizkid Simply look up The Ron Paul video when he asked Bernanke if gold was money. Bernanke says NO, even though The constitution clearly says that only gold and silver is money. Ron Paul responds with, "Who changed that law since gold has been used as money for 10,000" and then askes "Why does The Fed Still hold Gold?" The deer in the headllights look and the repsonse is priceless.
@mickeysears Can you send me a link or simply plug what it's under, I'm curious. That doesn't sound like any type of admittance though. I'm pretty sure they went on the record and said they haven't held gold since 1934. In all fairness, it is only the U.S. Congress with the power to delegate monetary authority, which they did to the Federal Reserve. It's completely within bounds. I'm still curious about this video, so if you get a chance that would be cool.
@mickeysears You should really either listen or stop messaging me. You sound like an idiot trying explain to me your kindergarden crap about houses. Most of those "unsuspecting homeowners" were speculators and flippers trying to make a killing in real estate. You're probably listening to the news, but that's not even the whole story. GMAC allowed variable rate loans, so speculators could make a killing.
@WallStwizkid Most of those Variable rate loans were given to first time and un qualified buyers. Companies only qualified them for the first two years of adjustments. After rates went up, buyers could not afford the payments and the homes weren't worth what they paid for them. Most bought homes with little or no money down. I'm not disagreeing with you about some speculators but that wasn't what caused the collapse. It was too many buyers at the top of the market.
@mickeysears I know all about it. They also pushed loan packages like cofi loans on first time buyers which is ridiculous, those types of loans are for savvy investors. But I'm telling you, most of those "unsuspecting" homeowners were speculators. If you want to think stupid overextended homeowners caused all that, go right ahead. It's only a fraction of it. I never denied what you're saying, about the bubble bursting, I was mentioning what accelerated it into a global recession.
@WallStwizkid I don't know about the "But I'm telling you, most of those "unsuspecting" homeowners were speculators" comment. I'm sure many of these people thought that if they got into trouble, they would simply be able to sell at a profit since home prices were rising at about 1% per month or more. So I guess that could be catergorized as speculation. But none of this could have happened if The Fed didn't force interest rates down to new lows and flood the market with easy money.
@mickeysears I'm not disagreeing with that, I do feel they should've been raising rates, and those variable rates should've never been introduced. Adjustable rates follow a short term index. Short term yields call out demand for capital supplies. If you're going to say you don't believe that...okay...I don't believe stupid homeowners flooded housing like that because of easy approvals. Sure it contributed, but that's not the whole thing.
@mickeysears As far as mid market and community banks go, they had tighter capital restrictions under Basel 2, since they were actually using current market rates for adjusted net capital to asses liquidation risks. Basel 2 is pointless, since Goldman, JP/Chase etc. employed proprietary formulas that no doubt underestimated security positions.
@WallStwizkid What you must look at is the result, not the implied intent. After the economic collapse all banks stocks lost. The banks most exposed by the bad assets were the few that got bailed out. They made bad investments and should have gove under. Then those mid market banks would have bought up the assets and we would have recovered. But what happened instead was that governmetn protected those big banks by bailing them out. They then use those bail out funds.
@mickeysears But they used those loans not to loan out, which was the implied intent, but to buy up those mid market banks at bargin prices. It was the Fed that created the collapse. Then the government bailed out thier crony friends and allowed them to get bigger by buying up regional banks. At one time government policy was that "To big to fail" meant "To big to exist" Now they're protected. Many jobs were lost because of bank consolidation. The rich get richer and YOU APPARENTLY SUPPORT THAT.
@mickeysears I don't support the bailouts. The reason why the bailouts were a "necessary evil" was because the politicians had securities tied up with those banks, linked to the same derivatives that left those banks on the hook to pay up, which they couldn't. So yeah, they're buying off politicians. I don't agree with that, but I'm not going to bash the Federal Reserve, I feel they're in the middle of it. I have a problem with Goldman Sachs and friends, not the central bank.
@WallStwizkid " I have a problem with Goldman Sachs and friends, not the central bank."
This gave me a good laugh. Thanks!!!
But don't forget the current government administration at the top of finances. The people at places like Goldman Saks and JP Morgan Chase and that sit at the top in politics are all the same people. Who is Obamas current chief of staff? Bill Daly, former Goldman Saks Exec. Tim Guitner former Fed President. Hank Paulson former JP Morgan Exec. The list goes on and on
@mickeysears This has been going since The Feds creation. A vast majority of top administration officials over the last 100 years have had very close ties to Wall street banks. The creation of the Fed itself was started by New York bankers. Even David Rockefeller had the position of Fed Chairman at the same time he held the poristion of Chase Bank Chairman. A clear violation but ignored for the head of the family that was instumental of the creation of The Fed itself.
@mickeysears Yes, I'm aware of that, but I happen to agree with Bernanke on monetary policy. I really feel they're in the middle of the Treasury and Goldman Sachs, and I'm mainly supporting the need for a central banking structure, not defending corrupt individuals within that structure. That's just like saying a president is corrupt so we should just get rid of the presidency. Congress does vote in the FRB governors, so this isn't something that can't be cleaned up.
@mickeysears I'm not saying Lehman Bros. didn't have their hands dirty, but Goldman Sachs should've met the same fate. The CEO of JPMorgan/Chase obtained a bonus increase from $1.3mill. in 2009 to $20.8 the following year, 1500%. I debated that libertarian on a video titled "utopia", and it last a good month. I made it clear that I did not support the bailouts, although most of the debate was mainly about the gold standard.
@mickeysears I agree with that. That wasn't capitalism. All those banks should've failed and been replaced. I've been saying that for a while now. I'm not defending Goldman Sachs, I was just defending the Federal Reserve. It's cool that you're in real estate, I assumed you were some kid in the beginning simply because I'm at work at this time, if I didn't take off. I debated a libertarian on here, and it was a good debate. I respect opinions that I don't agree with.
@WallStwizkid I've been a realtor for many years now. I saw the boom in housing prices and I saw how banks had over 400 different types of loans that had to conform to Federal Guidelines. Easy money and credit was rampant. But no one saw it as a problem except Austrian Economists. Many said we have to fix the problem of the collapse. But the real problem wasn't the collapse. The problem was the run up to the collapse. The collapse was just the natural result of the problem.
@mickeysears I think excesses like that could be controlled under the current system. I know they weren't, but I don't blame that on the system. I feel central banks need leverage, and currency value changes on a variety of different activities. Foreign demand for capital, purchase power against the CPI index etc. Flexibility is important I feel, and injections of money into the economy will reverse any deflation.
@mickeysears Plus currency trading is big business, and even in the forex markets and currency futures, they don't trade actual paper cash, it's all electronic. I feel the next evolution in money systems will be 100% electronic. Gold just isn't plausible, it peaked demand in the 80s. Those prices are attributed largely to inflation, not intrinsic. Maybe recently it picked up since holiday sales are up 7% from last year, but investors mostly see it as a safe asset like treasuries.
@WallStwizkid "Gold just isn't plausible, it peaked demand in the 80s. Those prices are attributed largely to inflation, not intrinsic"
Gold and inflation peaked in the 80's because of the break down of The Bretten Woods agreement and Nixon taking ue off The Gold Standard in 1971. That allowed The Fed a full fiat monetary system and we've had massive deficits and inflation ever since. We've had over 5000% inflation since 1970
@mickeysears Did you know that from 1947 to 1970 America was in the greatest expansion in world history and produced more middle class than any other country in any time period? And did you know that at that same time The federal government kept to a balanced budget and exceeded it's deficit in only 2 of those 23 years? We now have lost most of that middle class and now more people are in poverty and receiving assistance than ever before. Put 2 and 2 together.
@mickeysears Well I'm not going to argue with you about the budget. When the federal reserve bought out the treasury to induce demand in the financial crisis, the gov. actually spent more money into the economy causing dangerous inflation. This is why U.S. credit was downgraded this past summer, since they have yet to adopt a conservative budget policy. I won't argue with that, because everyone knows gov. spending is out of hand.
@mickeysears But don't forget we produced the largest surplus ever seen in the 90s. That's what subsidized the agriculture industry, and any excess supply remaining at the end of each fiscal year was air dropped as food supplies over starving nations. No other country can claim that.
@mickeysears Plus, you can't claim double digit inflation levels in the 70s was supply side, because it was stagflation-high unemployment and OPEC raised oil prices.
@WallStwizkid I never said double digit inflation had anything to do with market influances. That inflation happened solely because we started spending money we didn't have and just printed what we wanted. OPEC may have raised prices but that had nothing to do with inflation as much as to try and influance foreign policy. Besides gasoline would be between 10 and 15 cents per gallon today if we were still on the gold standard.
@mickeysears What do you mean OPEC raising oil prices had nothing to do with inflation? That's what inflation is. Stagflation is categorized as high unemployment and rising commodity prices. That was set in motion when OPEC raised oil prices, coupled in with demand deficient unemployment in the labor market. If you want to talk about the worst case of inflation, you'll have to look at Germany in the 20s.
@WallStwizkid Your argument is basically "Which came first, the chicken or the egg"?
What you classify as Stagflation was simply the Government printing money in excess of income to try and prop up prices by not letting the true and efficient free market corrections to take place. We're in that today. Prices were rising all along.
Maybe you just don't understand that there is only ONE PLACE WERE INFLATION CAN HAPPEN. Only in the printing of a countries currency can inflation take place.
@mickeysears LOL Dude, seriously, go take a macroeconomics class before you debate me. What you said is the biggest crock of Ron Paul endorsed shit I've heard all month. If you think money supply inflation is the only cause of inflation, then you don't even know basics. There's demand side deflation, credit deflation, demand-pull inflation, cost-push inflation..you think there's only one type of inflation, which means you don't know squat about macroeconomics.
That's just your liberally biased poor education talking. There is only one way and one way only to produce inflation. And that's through the artificial creation of the money supply. All other price variations are through supply and demand models. But supply and demand just move prices around. They don't create inflation. Since the country began to 1913, gold has been $20 per oz. But since the country began inflation only happen with the creation of paper currency.
@mickeysears WTF LOL You have no idea what you're talking about. My "liberal "biased education." lol Really? Nothing you're saying makes sense. Do you even know what economists get paid to do? They get paid to anticipate inflation. If inflation is anticipated, banks can adjust interest rates, and wages adjust as well. Obviously if the Federal Reserve expands the money supply it's anticipated.
@mickeysears Where as cost-push inflation comes from companies protecting profit margins. That has nothing to do with the Fed. My advice to you would be, don't go around saying "there's only one way to produce inflation", because that's a sure fire way to get laughed at, unless you're talking to people that have no clue about anything in economics. Sorry dude, it's not that simple. That is one type of inflation. There's many.
"Where as cost-push inflation comes from companies protecting profit margins"
Now that's funny. What you said has absolutely nothing to do with inflation. Raising prices to protect profit margins can come from many different sources. (Material shortages, labor contracts) But inflation isn't one of them. Inflation can only happen through an increase in the money supply. PERIOD.
@mickeysears What about stagflation, another type. What happens if there's a war in the middle east, or an oil spill? Prices rise and it has nothing to do with monetary expansion. You think people are robots and economics is so simple that it's just one cause all the time, everywhere. Do you have any logic ability? People are people, not robots, we have free will. In your mindset you wouldn't even make it through economics 101, you'd be lost.
@WallStwizkid That's supply and demand. The supply goes down but no reduction in demand prices go up. That has nothing to do with inflation. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
@mickeysears Get out of here with this jekyl island shit. I've been working in the financial district of Manhattan for 8 years, and you're an idiot. INFLATION MEANS PRICES ARE RISING. THAT IS WHAT INFLATION MEANS. THERE'S MULTIPLE CAUSES OF INFLATION. Damn, you're a dumb fuck. I don't even curse, but you have to be mentally retarded.
@WallStwizkid " INFLATION MEANS PRICES ARE RISING."
Sorry that you're afraid of the truth. That book will give you incite. And you're right that inflation means prices are rising. No one is arguing that. But rising prices don't create inflation. Inflation creates rising prices. And the real truth is THERE'S MULTIPLE CAUSES OF RISING PRICES BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE CAUSE OF INFLATION. Take that to the bank. Whatever central bank you subscribe to.
@WallStwizkid Economics 101 would be meaningless. I'm sure you got an "A". But all these collages teach the Keynesian Economic Model. That's their downfall and the reason why todays liberal economists are alway wrong. It's also why they they have just one answer. More government spending even though they see it hasn't worked. there answer is "It wasn't enough". The real answer is "It wasn't neccessary"
@mickeysears I can't even talk to you. You're driving me nuts. Look, I'll make it a simple as possible and then I give up. People are not robots, and modern economics is complex. You don't know any capitalization or discount of money formulas, so you don't even know how to calculate future values of investments and money. Low interest rates doesn't always mean people will borrow. I invite anybody reading this to look up what a liquidity trap is as one example of what I'm explaining.
@mickeysears Persistent deflation is BAD. Even zero percent on a loan, it's more lucrative to not borrow and save money that will be worth more the following year. The economy slows down, there could be a recession. This doesn't necessarily happen, that is ONE possibility of ONE scenario. There is no such thing as a free market fairy. People are unpredictable and modern economics is complex. You can't even picture it because you seem to think economies are mechanized, it's retarded
@mickeysears I can cite dozens examples where normal market conditions didn't occur. There's basic terms in economics like liquidity traps and demand deficient unemployment. There's stagflation, hyper inflation, demand pull inflation, cost push inflation, credit deflation, demand deficient deflation..it goes on and on. Why do you think these names are different? Because it's fun? It's because THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONDITIONS WITH DIFFERENT VARIABLES.
@mickeysears Get lost. You're an idiot. Yeah I pulled a textbook out to explain the first lesson from a book I read years ago in college. I'm 30 dude. This is beyond basic, and anybody that knows anything about economics knows how easy these terms are. Most of it is math formulas. I'd get into cardinal and ordinal utilities but your head would heard. Look retard, for the second time. INFLATION GENERALLY MEANS A RISE IN THE PRICES OF GOOD AND SERVICES. Fourth time you're being told.
@mickeysears Hey people. Look up what inflation is on google, send this kid a message telling him what a fucking idiot he is. I learned this in like freshman year in college and I've been in finance for 8 years, and this moron is so brain dead he won't admit he doesn't know what he's saying.
"Economists generally agree that high rates of inflation are caused by excessive growth of the money supply. Factors determine low to moderate rates of inflation are more varied and are attributed to fluctuations in demand for goods and services or changes in available supplies as well as growth in the money supply. However the consensus view is that a long sustained period of inflation is caused by money supply growing faster than the rate of economic growth
@mickeysears Yeah, he's nit picking shit out of it. It says this "The term "inflation" originally referred to increases in the amount of money in circulation, and some economists still use the word in this way. However, most economists today use the term "inflation" to refer to a rise in the price level. An increase in the money supply may be called monetary inflation, to distinguish it from rising prices, which may also for clarity be called 'price inflation"
@WallStwizkid I copied and pasted from wiki. Had to eliminate some extra words to fit the limit but the idea is there. You first have to have the MONETARY INFLATION before any of the other can happen. It's just a simple fact. Maybe too simple for a college grad with a whole 8 years shilling stocks. But simple enough. BYE BYE
@mickeysears I just quoted a line from keynesian view on the same page you sourced, dipshit. People, Keynesian economics is what economists practice now. Wikipedia just cites historical facts first. Nobody practices classical economics anymore. Keynesian models were adopted post depression, the lines he's quoting are classical views and considered ancient, kind of like Ron Paul. This is also the reason why modern sites like investopedia only discuss Keynesian.
"Keynesian economics is what economists practice now."
" So let's see, Bernanke, a Keynesian professor at Princeton and now chairman of the Fed is in complete agreement with me."
"This is also the reason why modern sites like investopedia only discuss Keynesian."
Three qoutes from your posts. You better get your head out of your Keynesian ass. There are many economists (The Austrian ones) that have been right. Bernanke???? You backed the wrong horse Junior
@mickeysears So let's see, Bernanke, a Keynesian professor at Princeton and now chairman of the Fed is in complete agreement with me. And Ron Paul the crackpot quack is with this guy. By the way, me and Bernanke actually practice economics in real time work experience. This guy and Ron Paul read text books filled with outdated material.
@mickeysears Here people. Google quantity theory of money in wikipedia. It discusses everything he's been saying. All the math formulas are based on transaction real value, velocity, money supply, and expenses, with calculus differential variables, deductive growth rate expenditures. Go ahead and check it out. Notice there's no variable for nominal income. Now scroll down to the bottom where it says criticisms, and Keynes's challenge of the theory.
@mickeysears Then click on "theory of general employment, interest and money." That is what's accepted as economically efficient in modern economies, not ancient classical economic theories. Oh wow look at these principles "money theory is exogenous." More economists are swaying towards endogenous now though, and injecting money into the economy will reverse deflation.
@mickeysears Exactly, because inflation occurs in a growing economy. That's why most industrial nations aim for 2-3% inflation annually, and even China is following in our path. Deflation hurts debtors, like farmers, and when it becomes more and more costly to finance production, and prices keep declining, they end up paying more to produce than what they return. Prolonged deflation leads to hoarding, asset values drop, people on fixed debt are screwed.
@mickeysears The only people that like deflation are cash hoarders. They hoard cash and slow down economic growth. Sorry but farmers and other debtors are more important. If people had to choose between you or farmers, they'd get rid of you. The food supply is more important than a cash hoarder providing no benefit to anybody but himself. Spending money creates jobs, and disinflation such as current disinflation has a better reaction, which is why holiday sales are up over 6.6%.
@mickeysears That's why current Fed policy caters to debtors first. It provides easy financing options for capital goods and production, and prolonged deflation can result in interest free loans for them, by the difference between nominal and real rates of interest. Inflation helps debtors and hurts hoarders, and debtors are more important. If you were a farmer you'd hate deflation.
@mickeysears It's practically unanimous among modern economists that prolonged deflation is bad, due to spiral risks and recession fears. If GDP drops by 10% or more a year, there's a depression.
@mickeysears Sorry typo..I meant prolonged inflation can benefit debtors with interest free loans, by the difference between nominal and real rates. Right now we personally are aiming for 2% inflation annually.
@mickeysears Sorry to bother you, one more thing. I just watched the video you cited, the financial committee questioning Chairman Bernanke, mainly Ron Paul, about gold. ;Lol have you read everything I typed? He said exactly what I said. I told you gold is used as a currency hedge of risk, and like treasury bonds, it's an asset, a metal. I find it funny, his answer practically mirrored my response to you. I told you, I know what's going on. That's how investors view gold.
@mickeysears Investors see gold in a traditional light, much like Chairman Bernanke responded. It's a traditional metal that investors see as safe when the dollar is down, it's actually used as a currency hedge globally, no country is on the gold standard anymore. Treasury bonds like gold, are seen as low risk, since they're debentures, and a safe haven when there's turmoil in the stock market. That's really investor demand and/or sentiment on gold currently.
@mickeysears Now I have a request for you. I watched your video, now I'd like for you to check out what I just found when you get a chance. I'm about half way through only, and already it's relevant to our debate. Type in "Fed Chairman Bernanke on the Economy". It's a 60min. interview. I mean the show 60mins not that it's an hour long. Man I wish I could've gone to a college he taught at. Practically every conclusion I've come to on my own, he's been mentioning.
@mickeysears We were going over import and export data from last month, and there was a bit of inflation. Import prices were up 0.7% for a 1.1% gain, which is a bit lower than economists thought. Hmmm why was there inflation when the Fed contracted the money supply for the holiday sales season? Hmm why did they say that. Maybe we should fly the California realtor out here so you can show our economists what's what. You can bring your Ron Paul book as evidence. Lol bye.
@mickeysears " "Critics of the theory argue that money velocity is not stable and, in the short-run, prices are sticky, so the direct relationship between money supply and price level does not hold.
Alternative theories include the real bills doctrine and the more recent fiscal theory of the price level." Like I said, before, it's been replaced as an outdated concept.
@mickeysears "Economists Alfred Marshall, A.C. Pigou, and John Maynard Keynes (before he developed his own, eponymous school of thought) associated with Cambridge University, took a slightly different approach to the quantity theory, focusing on money demand instead of money supply. They argued that a certain portion of the money supply will not be used for transactions; instead, it will be held for the convenience and security of having cash on hand."
@mickeysears So check out the Cambridge approach/equation as well. All in all wikipedia packs stuff in, and they're not funded, all volunteers. Investopedia doesn't label it "Keynesian theory", yet their inflation tutorial is all Keynesian, and they're professionals. That's because we practice Keynesian models now, not classical.
@mickeysears If you people look back in my messages, I never denied money supply expansion causes inflation. I set like, a dozen times, that is one form of expansion. Notice it says "orginally". That's exactly what I said from the start. Nice try but he's using a cheap tactic. Wikipedia is written by amateurs and they're all volunteer. Investopedia is by investors, economists, and financial professionals. Here people, scroll down to keynesian view on the same site he sent.
@mickeysears Here;s the Keynesian view on the same page he sent..scroll down to here..."Keynesian view
"Keynesian economic theory proposes that changes in money supply do not directly affect prices, and that visible inflation is the result of pressures in the economy expressing themselves in prices."
@mickeysears The only thing you should worry about is the simple concept of what inflation is generally. It's a rise in the prices of goods and services. The market is obviously more equipped for credit inflation, because it's at the hands of the central bank and we know it's coming. Versus an unexpected oil spill that causes prices to surge. An increase in the price of goods and services is what inflation is. There's many different ca
@mickeysears Anybody reading this, go check out what I'm saying. This guys has no idea what he's talking about and he's making an ass out of himself every time he responds because for some reasons, he's dumb enough to think continuing this is going to work out for him. You're an idiot. Hyper inflation is when business cycles experience unusually high inflation. Germany saw the worst case of hyper inflation in the 20s, and they were not on a fiat system, you dumb fuck.
@WallStwizkid "Germany saw the worst case of hyper inflation in the 20s, and they were not on a fiat system"
Yes because they tried to print there way out of their current debts by inflating the currency. After a while the money wasn't worth the paper it was printed on and nobody accepted it. that's what will happen to every central bank economy. History always repeats itself.
@mickeysears Hey people, go to an investopedia by typing in "what is inflation" and look under that column and look under "how is inflation measured." It's written so a kindergartner can understand it. It mirrors practically most of what I told him, because it's some of the most basic economic concepts. This kid has no idea what he's talking about. You should just leave dude, this is embarrassing for you.
@mickeysears Notice the part they mention, which I highlighted- WAGES...when inflation is anticipated, wages and interest rates adjust. Dangerous inflation is mostly demand side. Practically had to corner this fucker into admitting he doesn't know shit. I bet he'll come back with more bizarre crap to try and save face. Just give it up dude, it's over. If I were I'd return those Ron Paul books.
@WallStwizkid "Practically had to corner this fucker into admitting he doesn't know shit."
Really?????? YOU CORNERED ME INTO ADMITTING SOMETHING????
For a while we were having a nice conversation. Too bad. You know, if just don't want to part with the $20 bucks to buy Creature From Jekyll Island, you can just watch some of it's points here on You Tube. It doesn't cover 1% of what the book does but it gives you an idea of just how stupid and ignorant you are. See you loser.
@mickeysears This is why the FRB doesn't take Ron Paul seriously. Because he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, on the simplest of concepts.
@mickeysears Okay, I usually don't insult people for not knowing something, but if I'm explaining something, and they continue with the same stupidity, it's a different story. Are you mentally retarded? Do you even know what inflation is? Inflation means prices are rising. You're essentially saying prices can only rise from one cause. You're retarded. An oil spill leads to rising prices, that is inflation. It has nothing to do with creating more money.
@mickeysears Which brings me to demand deficient unemployment. More proof that the market fairy doesn't exist when demand deficient unemployment occurs. A central bank has the ability to navigate through this, and the market will reach equilibrium when the difference between nominal wages and real wages disappear.
@WallStwizkid "A central bank has the ability to navigate through this, and the market will reach equilibrium when the difference between nominal wages and real wages disappear."
My God man! You can't dictate that through Central Economic Planning. Only free market forces can produce a market equilibrium through the process of supply and demand. Everything else is artificial and cannot be sustained without the forcible transfer of wealth of a socialist system. You need to go back to school
@mickeysears I don't need to go back to school, you probably just need to go to school, period. Free market forces of supply and demand do not always produce equilibrium. Do you know what you're saying? If that were true then demand deficient unemployment wouldn't exist. If that were true the Great Depression wouldn't have occurred. If what you were saying was true, demand would've been induced when the Fed contracted the money supply before the 29 crash, and it didn't. That's fact.
@mickeysears Now you're going to say yeah but but uh uh the Fed uh but..no but nothing. They contracted the money supply and demand did not pick up with lower prices. That's fact and dunks 80 percent of your argument. The glut of the 1870s over produced and guess what, the money supply expanded 2.6% a year that decade. So much for supply and demand. I'm sorry but it's a fact these things happen and it comes from multiple sources, not just supply sources. It's not that simple.
@WallStwizkid Now I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Are you talking about the 1970's or the 1870's? Don't forget that in the 1870's, the Federal Government was heavily involved in agricuture and land grants that distroyed the free markets in land and food sales. But there I go again. Involving The Government in distorting business.
@mickeysears Pretty funny. Quantity theory of money has been debunked before Ron Paul was born. If what you were saying was true, you're basically saying all the money supply is used in transactions, ignoring savings, which is ridiculously wrong. You're ignoring trade deficits that actually help expansions because they provide price competition beyond the current supply.. There's so many different scenarios. You really think economics is that black and white simple? Sorry, it's not.
@mickeysears I was talking about the long depression, but it doesn't matter, that wasn't the point. The point was, the long depression was deflation yet the money supply expanded 2.6% per year. I'm trying to illustrate that it's not always supply side for inflation OR deflation, it's not that simple. I'll make this real easy for you. You make $10 grand one week and save it all. There, your money didn't touch prices.
@WallStwizkid "You make $10 grand one week and save it all. There, your money didn't touch prices."
I'll make this really easy for you. You make $10K and bury it in the yard. Nothing happens to prices. But if you and everyone else gets bailed out and each receive $10K, people will start buying products they didn't need. There will be short term shortages. And prices on those items will go through the roof. To create the inflation you must first create the money to produce it.
@mickeysears Wait lol I bet you think deflation means prices are low and the economy sees demand. Ever hear of cash hoarding? It's another basic concept. People save money, and the economy slows down, that's not demand dude. If there's capital flight out of a financial system, the Fed will raise rates to entice investor demand, may or may not be related. I bet you think high interest always means investors will lend. Not if they feel hoarding cash is more appealing to lending it.
@WallStwizkid If people are saving money and cash moves out of the markets, interest rates would also rise in a free market. But at least in a free market the rise in rates would be as demand dictates as opposed to central economic planning that always over compinsates both ways. They never get it right. But seriously dude, If you truely want to understand how The Fed works and why it need to be shut down, Read "Creature fron Jekyll Island" But I must go now. Good luck with your liberal crap.
@mickeysears I bet you think contracting the money supply leads to less borrowing since it's a high interest rate environment. Ever hear of a liquidity trap? Another basic concept. Central banks have never charged negative interest, and even at zero percent on a loan, you're still paying off fixed debt with money that's worth more the following year, as you lose asset value.
@mickeysears I'm just talking about nominal and real prices. It's really not used for much, aside from luxury items like jewelry which is elastic to demand. I believe we have 9,000 tons of gold, which is, off the top, between $450-$500bill. When it was up $1.7k/oz. it was around $480 bill. give or take. You'd have to re-price gold at ridiculous levels which would end all applications in it, and I don't mean as a hedge source. I mean professions that actually use it.
@mickeysears If it weren't for the gold standard, the Federal Reserve at the time could have extended credit and prevented the Great Depression. That's what lead to calls to end the gold standard to begin with, which shows you guys are pretty confused. Boom and bust are characteristics of fixes exchanges, like commodity money systems such as gold. This is why deflation lead to the Great Depression back then, which did not happen during the recent recession.
@mickeysears Do you even know what a supply glut is? Or the difference between inflation and deflation? A supply glut means markets are oversupplied, which is what happened before the depression due to enormous gains. This lead to high unemployment. If what you're saying were true, the market would've found equilibrium and demand would have been induced by dropping prices. That didn't happened, and asset values crashed. Of course a central bank is necessary.
@mickeysears When markets are oversupplied, banks hold off on collecting non-performing loans, and selling devalued assets further gluts supply. The relief is temporary because eventually banks have to restrict credit because THEY HAVE NO MONEY TO LEND. These are all symptoms of a deflation spiral. If you actually knew what boom and bust cycles were, you'd know how ridiculous it would be to say gold standards and other fixed exchanges don't cause them.
@mickeysears Last thing I'm going to say which is what you guys need to understand. Ron Paul is a libertarian...they ALL say that. If you ask anybody currently working in finance, most support Keynesian economic models. Libertarians just take characteristics we say occur under gold standards, and say fiat systems cause it. They have nothing to back it up of course, because it's never happened. The only time inflation occurred under the gold standard was over 160 years ago- gold rush
@mickeysears If you don't want to believe me, then just use common sense. If the Federal Reserve expands the money supply, then banks can adjust interest rates and workers can enter labor contracts to balance rising prices. That's because it's anticipated inflation, which is good, because the economy is growing. Dangerous inflation is unexpected, like demand-pull inflation or cost-push. That has nothing to do with the Federal Reserves monetary policy, it's demand side causes.
@mickeysears Ron Paul isn't stupid, but he has a warped view of economics. He was a doctor before politics, not a financial executive or economist. I can tell right away he has a textbook view of economics, which he admits himself. Libertarian theory sounds great in a textbook, but it's not that simple. Money demand has a more proportionate effect on inflation rates, not supply. Classical economic formulas such as quantity theory of money have been replaced by Keynesian models.
@doenstardupwidme If what you are saying is true, then its about time the congress takes 'Declaration of wars' seriously instead of treating it as just a formality, because otherwise America just turns into a war-machine that wages wars all over the world willy-nilly for absolutely baseless/silly reasons.
Did they attack the UK? Did the terrorists attack Australia? NO! They attacked us! Yes, we tried to control all these countries, and so they attacked us. We keep forcing our opinions on others. We're not spreading liberty, we're spreading Socialism and Force!
myboyz4rlife 2 weeks ago
Ron Paul has many valid points, but Bob Scheiffer hits one really good point: WHAT HAPPENS TO THE NATIONAL PARKS? Ron Paul says "WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LOT OF THAT LAND SOLD OFF"
MY QUESTION IS: does that mean parts of the grand canyon national park, yellowstone national park, sequoia national park, and other national parks will be SOLD? and to who? Lands that have been preserved for decades or centuries will possibly be DESTROYED? Stay away from my national parks Ron Paul.
LiveFreeOrDie4 1 month ago
schieffer is just another TooL
danvito63 1 month ago
help save America and vote Dr.Ron Paul
ChrisKalmus 1 month ago 2
Bob Scheiffer is ridiculous stating that "the US government has not said it has plans to bomb Iran" as if it is a valid rebuttle of Ron Paul's argument. The US government is not going to say it's going to bomb Iran until it actually proposes to bomb Iran. However, those seeking major policy making offices have said they want to bomb Iran. While the government can be symbolized as an out of control monster, in reality it's these people making the decisions.
JoeMac77777 1 month ago
The country needs this man more than it knows. He's intelligent, educated and responsible.
JITTERdUdEepic 1 month ago
@urautubeloser1 Very well said. Bob Schieffer made a fool of himself here and revealed his blatant bias against Congressman Paul. I am writing CBS tomorrow about this. Maybe Schieffer can enroll in an introductory journalism course at a community college in the NYC area---He needs in-service training!
bboucharde 1 month ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow! Look & listen to Bob Schieffer baiting & provoking Ron Paul, & putting words in his mouth. Bob's tone, blatant baiting, and questions sound like they were scripted by a combination of Leon Panetta, Goldman-Sachs, Boeing, & Lockheed-Martin. Schieffer is under orders here to intimidate and provoke Ron Paul, but Paul defends himself well. I have lost ALL RESPECT for Bob Schieffer---It is real clear who pulls his strings! Schieffer apparently does not understand that the Fed gov is insolvent.
bboucharde 1 month ago
Ron Paul owned that fat bastard xD
steffen3443 1 month ago 5
As usual, the majority of these comments are pro-Ron Paul and anti-Bob Schiefer and the CBS propaganda.
RON PAUL, 2012. TRUTH, LOGIC, AND INTEGRITY!
johnnyViDeO 1 month ago
Ron Paul continues to school the (m)ass media, answering every question with logic, truth, and integrity. Some of the other media tools Dr. Paul has embarrassed are Wolf Blitzer, Bill O'Reilly, and Chris Wallace. These questions, meant to ridicule Dr. Paul's stands, are actually good for Americans to hear. He has a reputation as "Dr. NO" in the District for Corruption, voting against many of the pork bills and other schemes that politicians come up with.
End all wars! RON PAUL, 2012!
johnnyViDeO 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Searching the video I am posting below will tell you everything you need to know about Bob Schieffer and his despicable excuse for journalism. After no more than 20 seconds Schieffer cut him off and sent it back to Dan Rather.
Search YouTube: CBS - Senator cut off in the middle of 9/11 prior knowledge discussion
Namso2010 2 months ago
Bob Schieffer is the older brother of Tom Schieffer, a friend and former business partner of President George W. Bush, who was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Australia by President Bush and also served as U.S. Ambassador to Japan.
Conflict of Interest? I would certainly say so.
Namso2010 2 months ago
"NAAHHH, I THINK THAT..." so fucking annoying. Ron Paul is an idiot.
AntiTroll101 2 months ago
@AntiTroll101 an idiot that accurately predicted the housing crisis years before it happened.
chadimus84 1 month ago
This interviewer gets clowned every time he opens his mouth, then when he knows it he says "lets move on"
bp1191 2 months ago
@bp1191 WTF are you talking about, the interviewer is making Ron Paul look like a complete, stammering idiot.
AntiTroll101 2 months ago
@AntiTroll101 Keep drinking that lamestream news kool-aid. Have fun voting for more of the same! I will be laughing when our currency is worth nothing, nothing that people like you voted for the next crook. HAHAHAHA. Later.
benandreas369 2 months ago
the us sucks
dubistdoof1 2 months ago
CONTRIBUTED TO IT CONTRIBUTED TO IT!
UpalKashey 2 months ago
Go Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul 2012!!!
gremlog 2 months ago
Dr. Paul slapping him around. Like the energy. Just like to say that the international support of Ron Paul is much appreciated. Trying to peg him as an isolationist is much harder when you show your support. Keep it up. much love from America!!!
SicStylee 2 months ago
Ummm... at 8:10... did NO ONE ELSE just hear this man say "we would like to see a lot of land selled (sold) off"?!?!?! He wants to SELL OFF OUR NATIONAL PARKS?! I think Bob Schieffer did a GREAT job interviewing him. And, this isn't a debate, he doesn't get some "final statement" folks... Schieffer asked good questions, and due to the quick nature of the program would stop him when he had answered them. Again... THIS MAN WANTS TO SELL OFF OUR NATIONAL PARKS... WHAT?!?!?!?!?! Crazy. Period.
nessamaine 2 months ago
@nessamaine He's nuts. He thinks having nuclear weapons means we just don't even need a military, and if we need to defend ourselves we just push a button and annihilate a country. I know he didn't exactly say that, but that's essentially the attitude. I'm sorry but if anybody thinks solutions to the worlds problems are as easy as he paints it, they need to lay off the drugs.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid Amen & AMEN. Thank you. Don't know what disturbs me more, listening to his "ideas" or knowing that there are folks out there who actually think that he makes sense. Yipes. Thanks for the positive reply. I'm sure not everyone will agree with us. LOL. Oh, well... Here's to fighting the good fight, eh? Peace.
nessamaine 2 months ago
@nessamaine Ugh I don't even know where to begin. You're like an oasis in the desert on youtube. I sincerely hope these kids are either too young to vote, or do not speak for the majority. These simple minded ideas are dangerous. I just quit a self-assigned PR campaign on youtube in defense of the industry I'm employed in, finance. Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and go back to the gold standard. I've been wasting my time telling people how dangerous that is.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@nessamaine He's a libertarian and libertarians believe in an imaginary market fairy that swoops in to save the day and restore equilibrium to the market. That just doesn't happen, and the Great Depression is a prime example of that. The Federal Reserve at the time could not extend credit due to the gold standard, and if the so called market fairy existed, it would have induced demand as prices dropped. That didn't happen, the market crashed. He's dangerous. I hope he's not nominated
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@nessamaine I could rattle off terms like "Demand deficient unemployment" to Ron Paul supporters, and it's just in one, out the other, and back to some anti-Federal Reserve rhetoric. The economy needs to be navigated through a central banking influence. We've been there, done that, his theories are a century old. Classical economics has been replaced by Keynesian models. Most of the inflation experienced is not even supply side. His theories are crap. I hope you have a good holiday.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid Can't tell your politics, but you're sensible! I think THAT's where most folks are in our country...SENSIBLE... GOOD Government is the only way. GREAT to hear sense spoken! Years ago, 2003, I visited my Grandma (93 then), & she had the TV on w/ the sound down & GW Bush flashed on the "tonight on the news" thing... She said simply, "That kid is ruining our country. It's what happened in '29 all over again..." She NEVER talked politics, but she LIVED then & she knew. Sad. Thanks!
nessamaine 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid And you have a good holiday, too! :)
nessamaine 2 months ago
@nessamaine I don't really have a political affiliation. I usually hate talking politics, or getting involved in elections, but it kind of breaks down like this. I'm left wing on almost every issue except economics. I hated that too, because I couldn't stand some of the things republicans stood for. But, my job was important and I felt republicans had a more sound economic policy (except this guy). I felt the economy needed a central banking influence, and a gov. influence on fiscal policy.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@nessamaine I thought that was a perfect balance. We have monetary policy handled by a central bank, who is also the bank of the U.S. Treasury. We had the gov. controlling fiscal policy, as they should, since tax policy entitles a value to treasury securities which is one of the main instruments in creating money. But that was it, I thought it should be private industry, but not completely. I'm beginning to change my views though, because if this guy gets nominated, I'm for Obama.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@nessamaine My main issue was, I was against centralization of industry. I embraced Capitalism, and I felt the only rational pricing method was free pricing that starts from investments into capital goods. If it was centralized, the state would move capital goods through a system as objects with no value. This in turn would result in labor value pricings, and I was against socialism. Now I'm at the point where I feel Obama is the better candidate regardless.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@nessamaine Ron Paul is just too crazy with this free market idea, and it just doesn't work. He's definitely well versed in textbook economics, I can tell. Textbook libertarian economics sound so great, but it's unrealistic, even dangerous, because the world is not that simple. The economy needs a central bank and a treasury that function the way they currently function. I have to get going, but it was nice talking to you..I'll send you a friend request later on.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid " The economy needs a central bank and a treasury that function the way they currently function."
Too bad this statement is SO WRONG on so many levels. Central banking has been the driving force creating boom and bust cycles wiping out the middle class and moving the wealth up to the rich. America got rid of it 3 times before. You've heard of the term "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer"? Well, THAT'S HOW THEY DO IT.
Read the book "Creature from Jekyll Island"
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Look, I'm done talking about this on here. I don't need to read a conspiracy book, I've been working in finance for 8 years and went to school for it. What you just said is completely backwards, the gold standard saw boom and bust business cycles. You're taking recovery conditions from the financial crisis, which was not a natural event, and labeling it as a characteristic of fiat systems, exactly what Ron Paul does.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WallStwizkid " I don't need to read a conspiracy book"
Yes I know, a conspiracy book that names names and specific dates and actual laws and policies that then show results.
" I've been working in finance for 8 years and went to school for it."
You should sue your professors, all liberal progressives, I presume.
Gold standard saw boom and busts only in the natural law of supply and demand and lasted a short time. It wasn't until The Fed that we made busts last for a decade or more.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears What's wrong on so many levels is that you Ron Paul supporters on the internet think you know economics by reading a book he put out, or some other conspiracy theory manual. People that actually have experience in this just laugh and shake our heads at this. What you just said completely contradicts the supply glut caused by industrialization in the 19th century, which resulted in a deflationary spiral that crashed the market.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid So a supply glut created in the 19th century created a deflationary spiral crashing the market?
Supply gluts in the 1800's caused the 1929 crash? I hope that's not what you mean. That sounds so stupid. We had a crash in 1920 caused by over spending and over production during WW1 by the government. The 1929 fall was created by easy money and credit policies that pushed prices in real estate and stocks to unsustainable levels leading to a crash.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears You're really confused. There was a supply glut in the late 19th century. How could inflation lead to the depression, when the Fed contracted the money supply before the depression. Do you know what deflation is? It means prices keep dropping lower and lower. How could prices rise before the great depression when it was a deflationary spiral lol you have no idea what you're talking about.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WallStwizkid I'm cunfused? I think you have that wrong. "How could inflation lead to the depression, when the Fed contracted the money supply before the depression"?
That's a standard procedure to artificially create the boom and bust. First they have an easy monetary and credit policy to push prices up. (Inflation can ONLY HAPPEN WHEN THE MONEY SUPPLY IS INCREASED). Then The Fed tightens (by increasing the reverse rate in the fractional reserve system of central banking)
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears You're defending gold, and at the same time you're saying we had "easy money and credit" while we were still on the gold standard. Lol you're really confused. I don't even think you know what you're saying. Yes, industrialization started in the late 19th century. How could there be "easy credit" when money was gold receipts. The only recession risks under current policy come from speculative asset bubbles. It's only happened twice.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears One bubble was dot-com which wasn't a big deal. The second was housing which lead to the financial crisis in 2008. That was NOT a natural event. It was caused by exemptions from capital restrictions on banks with $5bill. or more in tentative net capital, which increased leverage for those banks, and speculation on derivatives which underestimated liquidation risks. Nothing to do with monetary policy. That was the SEC mainly, not the Fed. You're confused dude.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid The housing crisis in 2008 was caused by forced low interest rates, easy monetary policy, and a CRA law that allowed too many people to buy homes they didn't normally qualify for. I'm in real estate. When you have too many people trying to buy too few homes, prices get pushed up. Builders then take out low cost loans to over produce over priced new homes. The result is a housing collapse. All the Fed is trying to do now is to reinflate a popped balloon. It can't be done.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears It lead to the financial crisis, that's what I said. I never explained anything about how the housing bubble was caused because that wasn't the point. Capital restriction exemptions increased leverage for bulge-bracket banks, and these excesses lead to the bailouts. Most of the counter-party risk European banks faced on credit-based hedge funds lead to illiquid inter-bank lending markets in Europe.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears What you're saying makes no sense whatsoever. Do you even know how gold standards work? Notes are gold receipts. This means it's easier to contract the money supply, not so easy to expand it. That's because it's reliant on gold excavation. Like I said, inflation existed during the gold rush, which is about as old as Ron Paul's thinking. The Federal Reserve at the time could have easily contracted the money supply, which they did, and the market crashed.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears They should've inflated the money supply, but couldn't. You're either getting things mixed up, or you're reading really crappy sources. I've even debated legitimate libertarian economists who agree that contraction caused the crash, because that's what happened, it's fact. Even a libertarian can't deny it.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid I don't think you read too well. I've already said that contraction caused the crash. But we couldn't have a contraction until we first had the inflation. And both were perpetrated by the same people in The Fed. They created the easy policy monetary policy until it was time to contract. That's the problem. Now all boom and busts cycles will be both artificial and controlled.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears The Fed accepted mortgage-backed securities as bailout collateral as well. Anyway, the Federal Reserve hasn't held gold since 1934. At $8.3trill. in the M2 money supply, that's already more than the value of all the gold that's ever been mined, which is 142,000 metric tons. South Africa holds half of the worlds un-mined gold, so gold standards would shift economic dominance to countries like them. Not to mention it would end current applications that use gold.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid "The Fed accepted mortgage-backed securities as bailout collateral as well" Yes but only the favored banks like Goldman Saks, JP Morgon Chase, etc. And they were able to simply print money,( at interest and at taxpayers expense) to cover any losses,
"the Federal Reserve hasn't held gold since 1934" WRONG!!!! The Fed has more gold in the basement of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York than it what is believed held at Fort Knox in it's hayday. Even Bernanke admits that.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears I don't know where you get your facts from, but I'd like to see the chairman admitting that, send me a link. They went on the record stating they haven't held gold since 1934. The only time central bankers discuss gold it's in regards to selling. They use it as a currency hedge then they dump it. And I never said it was from all banks. My original statement regarded banks in $5bill. and up club, not mid market and community banks.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid Simply look up The Ron Paul video when he asked Bernanke if gold was money. Bernanke says NO, even though The constitution clearly says that only gold and silver is money. Ron Paul responds with, "Who changed that law since gold has been used as money for 10,000" and then askes "Why does The Fed Still hold Gold?" The deer in the headllights look and the repsonse is priceless.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Can you send me a link or simply plug what it's under, I'm curious. That doesn't sound like any type of admittance though. I'm pretty sure they went on the record and said they haven't held gold since 1934. In all fairness, it is only the U.S. Congress with the power to delegate monetary authority, which they did to the Federal Reserve. It's completely within bounds. I'm still curious about this video, so if you get a chance that would be cool.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears You should really either listen or stop messaging me. You sound like an idiot trying explain to me your kindergarden crap about houses. Most of those "unsuspecting homeowners" were speculators and flippers trying to make a killing in real estate. You're probably listening to the news, but that's not even the whole story. GMAC allowed variable rate loans, so speculators could make a killing.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid Most of those Variable rate loans were given to first time and un qualified buyers. Companies only qualified them for the first two years of adjustments. After rates went up, buyers could not afford the payments and the homes weren't worth what they paid for them. Most bought homes with little or no money down. I'm not disagreeing with you about some speculators but that wasn't what caused the collapse. It was too many buyers at the top of the market.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears I know all about it. They also pushed loan packages like cofi loans on first time buyers which is ridiculous, those types of loans are for savvy investors. But I'm telling you, most of those "unsuspecting" homeowners were speculators. If you want to think stupid overextended homeowners caused all that, go right ahead. It's only a fraction of it. I never denied what you're saying, about the bubble bursting, I was mentioning what accelerated it into a global recession.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid I don't know about the "But I'm telling you, most of those "unsuspecting" homeowners were speculators" comment. I'm sure many of these people thought that if they got into trouble, they would simply be able to sell at a profit since home prices were rising at about 1% per month or more. So I guess that could be catergorized as speculation. But none of this could have happened if The Fed didn't force interest rates down to new lows and flood the market with easy money.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears I'm not disagreeing with that, I do feel they should've been raising rates, and those variable rates should've never been introduced. Adjustable rates follow a short term index. Short term yields call out demand for capital supplies. If you're going to say you don't believe that...okay...I don't believe stupid homeowners flooded housing like that because of easy approvals. Sure it contributed, but that's not the whole thing.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears As far as mid market and community banks go, they had tighter capital restrictions under Basel 2, since they were actually using current market rates for adjusted net capital to asses liquidation risks. Basel 2 is pointless, since Goldman, JP/Chase etc. employed proprietary formulas that no doubt underestimated security positions.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid What you must look at is the result, not the implied intent. After the economic collapse all banks stocks lost. The banks most exposed by the bad assets were the few that got bailed out. They made bad investments and should have gove under. Then those mid market banks would have bought up the assets and we would have recovered. But what happened instead was that governmetn protected those big banks by bailing them out. They then use those bail out funds.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears But they used those loans not to loan out, which was the implied intent, but to buy up those mid market banks at bargin prices. It was the Fed that created the collapse. Then the government bailed out thier crony friends and allowed them to get bigger by buying up regional banks. At one time government policy was that "To big to fail" meant "To big to exist" Now they're protected. Many jobs were lost because of bank consolidation. The rich get richer and YOU APPARENTLY SUPPORT THAT.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears I don't support the bailouts. The reason why the bailouts were a "necessary evil" was because the politicians had securities tied up with those banks, linked to the same derivatives that left those banks on the hook to pay up, which they couldn't. So yeah, they're buying off politicians. I don't agree with that, but I'm not going to bash the Federal Reserve, I feel they're in the middle of it. I have a problem with Goldman Sachs and friends, not the central bank.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid " I have a problem with Goldman Sachs and friends, not the central bank."
This gave me a good laugh. Thanks!!!
But don't forget the current government administration at the top of finances. The people at places like Goldman Saks and JP Morgan Chase and that sit at the top in politics are all the same people. Who is Obamas current chief of staff? Bill Daly, former Goldman Saks Exec. Tim Guitner former Fed President. Hank Paulson former JP Morgan Exec. The list goes on and on
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears This has been going since The Feds creation. A vast majority of top administration officials over the last 100 years have had very close ties to Wall street banks. The creation of the Fed itself was started by New York bankers. Even David Rockefeller had the position of Fed Chairman at the same time he held the poristion of Chase Bank Chairman. A clear violation but ignored for the head of the family that was instumental of the creation of The Fed itself.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Yes, I'm aware of that, but I happen to agree with Bernanke on monetary policy. I really feel they're in the middle of the Treasury and Goldman Sachs, and I'm mainly supporting the need for a central banking structure, not defending corrupt individuals within that structure. That's just like saying a president is corrupt so we should just get rid of the presidency. Congress does vote in the FRB governors, so this isn't something that can't be cleaned up.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears I'm not saying Lehman Bros. didn't have their hands dirty, but Goldman Sachs should've met the same fate. The CEO of JPMorgan/Chase obtained a bonus increase from $1.3mill. in 2009 to $20.8 the following year, 1500%. I debated that libertarian on a video titled "utopia", and it last a good month. I made it clear that I did not support the bailouts, although most of the debate was mainly about the gold standard.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears I agree with that. That wasn't capitalism. All those banks should've failed and been replaced. I've been saying that for a while now. I'm not defending Goldman Sachs, I was just defending the Federal Reserve. It's cool that you're in real estate, I assumed you were some kid in the beginning simply because I'm at work at this time, if I didn't take off. I debated a libertarian on here, and it was a good debate. I respect opinions that I don't agree with.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid I've been a realtor for many years now. I saw the boom in housing prices and I saw how banks had over 400 different types of loans that had to conform to Federal Guidelines. Easy money and credit was rampant. But no one saw it as a problem except Austrian Economists. Many said we have to fix the problem of the collapse. But the real problem wasn't the collapse. The problem was the run up to the collapse. The collapse was just the natural result of the problem.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears I think excesses like that could be controlled under the current system. I know they weren't, but I don't blame that on the system. I feel central banks need leverage, and currency value changes on a variety of different activities. Foreign demand for capital, purchase power against the CPI index etc. Flexibility is important I feel, and injections of money into the economy will reverse any deflation.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Plus currency trading is big business, and even in the forex markets and currency futures, they don't trade actual paper cash, it's all electronic. I feel the next evolution in money systems will be 100% electronic. Gold just isn't plausible, it peaked demand in the 80s. Those prices are attributed largely to inflation, not intrinsic. Maybe recently it picked up since holiday sales are up 7% from last year, but investors mostly see it as a safe asset like treasuries.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid "Gold just isn't plausible, it peaked demand in the 80s. Those prices are attributed largely to inflation, not intrinsic"
Gold and inflation peaked in the 80's because of the break down of The Bretten Woods agreement and Nixon taking ue off The Gold Standard in 1971. That allowed The Fed a full fiat monetary system and we've had massive deficits and inflation ever since. We've had over 5000% inflation since 1970
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Did you know that from 1947 to 1970 America was in the greatest expansion in world history and produced more middle class than any other country in any time period? And did you know that at that same time The federal government kept to a balanced budget and exceeded it's deficit in only 2 of those 23 years? We now have lost most of that middle class and now more people are in poverty and receiving assistance than ever before. Put 2 and 2 together.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Sorry!!!!
I meant to say that The federal government kept to a balanced budget and exceeded it's deficit by more than $10 Billion in only 2 of those 23 years
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Well I'm not going to argue with you about the budget. When the federal reserve bought out the treasury to induce demand in the financial crisis, the gov. actually spent more money into the economy causing dangerous inflation. This is why U.S. credit was downgraded this past summer, since they have yet to adopt a conservative budget policy. I won't argue with that, because everyone knows gov. spending is out of hand.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears But don't forget we produced the largest surplus ever seen in the 90s. That's what subsidized the agriculture industry, and any excess supply remaining at the end of each fiscal year was air dropped as food supplies over starving nations. No other country can claim that.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Plus, you can't claim double digit inflation levels in the 70s was supply side, because it was stagflation-high unemployment and OPEC raised oil prices.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid I never said double digit inflation had anything to do with market influances. That inflation happened solely because we started spending money we didn't have and just printed what we wanted. OPEC may have raised prices but that had nothing to do with inflation as much as to try and influance foreign policy. Besides gasoline would be between 10 and 15 cents per gallon today if we were still on the gold standard.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears What do you mean OPEC raising oil prices had nothing to do with inflation? That's what inflation is. Stagflation is categorized as high unemployment and rising commodity prices. That was set in motion when OPEC raised oil prices, coupled in with demand deficient unemployment in the labor market. If you want to talk about the worst case of inflation, you'll have to look at Germany in the 20s.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid Your argument is basically "Which came first, the chicken or the egg"?
What you classify as Stagflation was simply the Government printing money in excess of income to try and prop up prices by not letting the true and efficient free market corrections to take place. We're in that today. Prices were rising all along.
Maybe you just don't understand that there is only ONE PLACE WERE INFLATION CAN HAPPEN. Only in the printing of a countries currency can inflation take place.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears LOL Dude, seriously, go take a macroeconomics class before you debate me. What you said is the biggest crock of Ron Paul endorsed shit I've heard all month. If you think money supply inflation is the only cause of inflation, then you don't even know basics. There's demand side deflation, credit deflation, demand-pull inflation, cost-push inflation..you think there's only one type of inflation, which means you don't know squat about macroeconomics.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid LOL!!!!
That's just your liberally biased poor education talking. There is only one way and one way only to produce inflation. And that's through the artificial creation of the money supply. All other price variations are through supply and demand models. But supply and demand just move prices around. They don't create inflation. Since the country began to 1913, gold has been $20 per oz. But since the country began inflation only happen with the creation of paper currency.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears WTF LOL You have no idea what you're talking about. My "liberal "biased education." lol Really? Nothing you're saying makes sense. Do you even know what economists get paid to do? They get paid to anticipate inflation. If inflation is anticipated, banks can adjust interest rates, and wages adjust as well. Obviously if the Federal Reserve expands the money supply it's anticipated.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Where as cost-push inflation comes from companies protecting profit margins. That has nothing to do with the Fed. My advice to you would be, don't go around saying "there's only one way to produce inflation", because that's a sure fire way to get laughed at, unless you're talking to people that have no clue about anything in economics. Sorry dude, it's not that simple. That is one type of inflation. There's many.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid LOL!!
"Where as cost-push inflation comes from companies protecting profit margins"
Now that's funny. What you said has absolutely nothing to do with inflation. Raising prices to protect profit margins can come from many different sources. (Material shortages, labor contracts) But inflation isn't one of them. Inflation can only happen through an increase in the money supply. PERIOD.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears What about stagflation, another type. What happens if there's a war in the middle east, or an oil spill? Prices rise and it has nothing to do with monetary expansion. You think people are robots and economics is so simple that it's just one cause all the time, everywhere. Do you have any logic ability? People are people, not robots, we have free will. In your mindset you wouldn't even make it through economics 101, you'd be lost.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid That's supply and demand. The supply goes down but no reduction in demand prices go up. That has nothing to do with inflation. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Get out of here with this jekyl island shit. I've been working in the financial district of Manhattan for 8 years, and you're an idiot. INFLATION MEANS PRICES ARE RISING. THAT IS WHAT INFLATION MEANS. THERE'S MULTIPLE CAUSES OF INFLATION. Damn, you're a dumb fuck. I don't even curse, but you have to be mentally retarded.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WallStwizkid " INFLATION MEANS PRICES ARE RISING."
Sorry that you're afraid of the truth. That book will give you incite. And you're right that inflation means prices are rising. No one is arguing that. But rising prices don't create inflation. Inflation creates rising prices. And the real truth is THERE'S MULTIPLE CAUSES OF RISING PRICES BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE CAUSE OF INFLATION. Take that to the bank. Whatever central bank you subscribe to.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid Economics 101 would be meaningless. I'm sure you got an "A". But all these collages teach the Keynesian Economic Model. That's their downfall and the reason why todays liberal economists are alway wrong. It's also why they they have just one answer. More government spending even though they see it hasn't worked. there answer is "It wasn't enough". The real answer is "It wasn't neccessary"
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears I can't even talk to you. You're driving me nuts. Look, I'll make it a simple as possible and then I give up. People are not robots, and modern economics is complex. You don't know any capitalization or discount of money formulas, so you don't even know how to calculate future values of investments and money. Low interest rates doesn't always mean people will borrow. I invite anybody reading this to look up what a liquidity trap is as one example of what I'm explaining.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Persistent deflation is BAD. Even zero percent on a loan, it's more lucrative to not borrow and save money that will be worth more the following year. The economy slows down, there could be a recession. This doesn't necessarily happen, that is ONE possibility of ONE scenario. There is no such thing as a free market fairy. People are unpredictable and modern economics is complex. You can't even picture it because you seem to think economies are mechanized, it's retarded
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears I can cite dozens examples where normal market conditions didn't occur. There's basic terms in economics like liquidity traps and demand deficient unemployment. There's stagflation, hyper inflation, demand pull inflation, cost push inflation, credit deflation, demand deficient deflation..it goes on and on. Why do you think these names are different? Because it's fun? It's because THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONDITIONS WITH DIFFERENT VARIABLES.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid LOL!!!
Did you pull out your economics book to cite these terms or are you doing it from memory?
Stagflation is when you won't let the markets adjust and you print money to try and keep prices propped up when they should fall to balanced levels.
Inflation is when you print money and flood the market with that money.
Hyperinflation is when your paying your previous debt with more debt by printing lots of money.
Get the idea?????
PRINTING MONEY
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Get lost. You're an idiot. Yeah I pulled a textbook out to explain the first lesson from a book I read years ago in college. I'm 30 dude. This is beyond basic, and anybody that knows anything about economics knows how easy these terms are. Most of it is math formulas. I'd get into cardinal and ordinal utilities but your head would heard. Look retard, for the second time. INFLATION GENERALLY MEANS A RISE IN THE PRICES OF GOOD AND SERVICES. Fourth time you're being told.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid LOL!!!
"INFLATION GENERALLY MEANS A RISE IN THE PRICES OF GOOD AND SERVICES"
And for the last time, no one is arguing that. Inflation does mean rising prices of goods and services.
But again and for the last time
"A RISE IN PRICES DOESN'T CAUSE INFLATION"
That's the result of the cause.
"INFLATION IS CAUSED BY THE EXCESS PRINTING OF MONEY AND THE RESULT IS A RISE IN PRICES"
DO YOU GET THAT YET RETARD?
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Hey people. Look up what inflation is on google, send this kid a message telling him what a fucking idiot he is. I learned this in like freshman year in college and I've been in finance for 8 years, and this moron is so brain dead he won't admit he doesn't know what he's saying.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid This from wikipedia
"Economists generally agree that high rates of inflation are caused by excessive growth of the money supply. Factors determine low to moderate rates of inflation are more varied and are attributed to fluctuations in demand for goods and services or changes in available supplies as well as growth in the money supply. However the consensus view is that a long sustained period of inflation is caused by money supply growing faster than the rate of economic growth
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Yeah, he's nit picking shit out of it. It says this "The term "inflation" originally referred to increases in the amount of money in circulation, and some economists still use the word in this way. However, most economists today use the term "inflation" to refer to a rise in the price level. An increase in the money supply may be called monetary inflation, to distinguish it from rising prices, which may also for clarity be called 'price inflation"
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid I copied and pasted from wiki. Had to eliminate some extra words to fit the limit but the idea is there. You first have to have the MONETARY INFLATION before any of the other can happen. It's just a simple fact. Maybe too simple for a college grad with a whole 8 years shilling stocks. But simple enough. BYE BYE
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears I just quoted a line from keynesian view on the same page you sourced, dipshit. People, Keynesian economics is what economists practice now. Wikipedia just cites historical facts first. Nobody practices classical economics anymore. Keynesian models were adopted post depression, the lines he's quoting are classical views and considered ancient, kind of like Ron Paul. This is also the reason why modern sites like investopedia only discuss Keynesian.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WallStwizkid
"Keynesian economics is what economists practice now."
" So let's see, Bernanke, a Keynesian professor at Princeton and now chairman of the Fed is in complete agreement with me."
"This is also the reason why modern sites like investopedia only discuss Keynesian."
Three qoutes from your posts. You better get your head out of your Keynesian ass. There are many economists (The Austrian ones) that have been right. Bernanke???? You backed the wrong horse Junior
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears So let's see, Bernanke, a Keynesian professor at Princeton and now chairman of the Fed is in complete agreement with me. And Ron Paul the crackpot quack is with this guy. By the way, me and Bernanke actually practice economics in real time work experience. This guy and Ron Paul read text books filled with outdated material.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Here people. Google quantity theory of money in wikipedia. It discusses everything he's been saying. All the math formulas are based on transaction real value, velocity, money supply, and expenses, with calculus differential variables, deductive growth rate expenditures. Go ahead and check it out. Notice there's no variable for nominal income. Now scroll down to the bottom where it says criticisms, and Keynes's challenge of the theory.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Then click on "theory of general employment, interest and money." That is what's accepted as economically efficient in modern economies, not ancient classical economic theories. Oh wow look at these principles "money theory is exogenous." More economists are swaying towards endogenous now though, and injecting money into the economy will reverse deflation.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid "More economists are swaying towards endogenous now though, and injecting money into the economy will reverse deflation."
LOL!!!!
And What do you get when you reverse deflation? Come on!! What the opposite of deflation?
If injecting money into an economy reverses deflation then logically it create inflation.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Exactly, because inflation occurs in a growing economy. That's why most industrial nations aim for 2-3% inflation annually, and even China is following in our path. Deflation hurts debtors, like farmers, and when it becomes more and more costly to finance production, and prices keep declining, they end up paying more to produce than what they return. Prolonged deflation leads to hoarding, asset values drop, people on fixed debt are screwed.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears The only people that like deflation are cash hoarders. They hoard cash and slow down economic growth. Sorry but farmers and other debtors are more important. If people had to choose between you or farmers, they'd get rid of you. The food supply is more important than a cash hoarder providing no benefit to anybody but himself. Spending money creates jobs, and disinflation such as current disinflation has a better reaction, which is why holiday sales are up over 6.6%.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears That's why current Fed policy caters to debtors first. It provides easy financing options for capital goods and production, and prolonged deflation can result in interest free loans for them, by the difference between nominal and real rates of interest. Inflation helps debtors and hurts hoarders, and debtors are more important. If you were a farmer you'd hate deflation.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears It's practically unanimous among modern economists that prolonged deflation is bad, due to spiral risks and recession fears. If GDP drops by 10% or more a year, there's a depression.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Sorry typo..I meant prolonged inflation can benefit debtors with interest free loans, by the difference between nominal and real rates. Right now we personally are aiming for 2% inflation annually.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Sorry to bother you, one more thing. I just watched the video you cited, the financial committee questioning Chairman Bernanke, mainly Ron Paul, about gold. ;Lol have you read everything I typed? He said exactly what I said. I told you gold is used as a currency hedge of risk, and like treasury bonds, it's an asset, a metal. I find it funny, his answer practically mirrored my response to you. I told you, I know what's going on. That's how investors view gold.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Investors see gold in a traditional light, much like Chairman Bernanke responded. It's a traditional metal that investors see as safe when the dollar is down, it's actually used as a currency hedge globally, no country is on the gold standard anymore. Treasury bonds like gold, are seen as low risk, since they're debentures, and a safe haven when there's turmoil in the stock market. That's really investor demand and/or sentiment on gold currently.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Now I have a request for you. I watched your video, now I'd like for you to check out what I just found when you get a chance. I'm about half way through only, and already it's relevant to our debate. Type in "Fed Chairman Bernanke on the Economy". It's a 60min. interview. I mean the show 60mins not that it's an hour long. Man I wish I could've gone to a college he taught at. Practically every conclusion I've come to on my own, he's been mentioning.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Oh WOW exactly what we were talking about before. You have to check this out.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears We were going over import and export data from last month, and there was a bit of inflation. Import prices were up 0.7% for a 1.1% gain, which is a bit lower than economists thought. Hmmm why was there inflation when the Fed contracted the money supply for the holiday sales season? Hmm why did they say that. Maybe we should fly the California realtor out here so you can show our economists what's what. You can bring your Ron Paul book as evidence. Lol bye.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears " "Critics of the theory argue that money velocity is not stable and, in the short-run, prices are sticky, so the direct relationship between money supply and price level does not hold.
Alternative theories include the real bills doctrine and the more recent fiscal theory of the price level." Like I said, before, it's been replaced as an outdated concept.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears "Economists Alfred Marshall, A.C. Pigou, and John Maynard Keynes (before he developed his own, eponymous school of thought) associated with Cambridge University, took a slightly different approach to the quantity theory, focusing on money demand instead of money supply. They argued that a certain portion of the money supply will not be used for transactions; instead, it will be held for the convenience and security of having cash on hand."
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears So check out the Cambridge approach/equation as well. All in all wikipedia packs stuff in, and they're not funded, all volunteers. Investopedia doesn't label it "Keynesian theory", yet their inflation tutorial is all Keynesian, and they're professionals. That's because we practice Keynesian models now, not classical.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears If you people look back in my messages, I never denied money supply expansion causes inflation. I set like, a dozen times, that is one form of expansion. Notice it says "orginally". That's exactly what I said from the start. Nice try but he's using a cheap tactic. Wikipedia is written by amateurs and they're all volunteer. Investopedia is by investors, economists, and financial professionals. Here people, scroll down to keynesian view on the same site he sent.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Here;s the Keynesian view on the same page he sent..scroll down to here..."Keynesian view
"Keynesian economic theory proposes that changes in money supply do not directly affect prices, and that visible inflation is the result of pressures in the economy expressing themselves in prices."
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears The only thing you should worry about is the simple concept of what inflation is generally. It's a rise in the prices of goods and services. The market is obviously more equipped for credit inflation, because it's at the hands of the central bank and we know it's coming. Versus an unexpected oil spill that causes prices to surge. An increase in the price of goods and services is what inflation is. There's many different ca
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid "An increase in the price of goods and services is what inflation is."
You must be using Economics 101 for dummies. It's available at amazon if you need an update version.
Inflation is NOT "increase in the price of goods and services is what inflation is."
That's the result of what happens after you inflate.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Anybody reading this, go check out what I'm saying. This guys has no idea what he's talking about and he's making an ass out of himself every time he responds because for some reasons, he's dumb enough to think continuing this is going to work out for him. You're an idiot. Hyper inflation is when business cycles experience unusually high inflation. Germany saw the worst case of hyper inflation in the 20s, and they were not on a fiat system, you dumb fuck.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid "Germany saw the worst case of hyper inflation in the 20s, and they were not on a fiat system"
Yes because they tried to print there way out of their current debts by inflating the currency. After a while the money wasn't worth the paper it was printed on and nobody accepted it. that's what will happen to every central bank economy. History always repeats itself.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid Yes and anybody reading this go read Creature from Jekyll Island.
This moron won't so he is doomed to his keynesian liberal ideology.
Poor Bastard.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Hey people, go to an investopedia by typing in "what is inflation" and look under that column and look under "how is inflation measured." It's written so a kindergartner can understand it. It mirrors practically most of what I told him, because it's some of the most basic economic concepts. This kid has no idea what he's talking about. You should just leave dude, this is embarrassing for you.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Notice the part they mention, which I highlighted- WAGES...when inflation is anticipated, wages and interest rates adjust. Dangerous inflation is mostly demand side. Practically had to corner this fucker into admitting he doesn't know shit. I bet he'll come back with more bizarre crap to try and save face. Just give it up dude, it's over. If I were I'd return those Ron Paul books.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WallStwizkid "Practically had to corner this fucker into admitting he doesn't know shit."
Really?????? YOU CORNERED ME INTO ADMITTING SOMETHING????
For a while we were having a nice conversation. Too bad. You know, if just don't want to part with the $20 bucks to buy Creature From Jekyll Island, you can just watch some of it's points here on You Tube. It doesn't cover 1% of what the book does but it gives you an idea of just how stupid and ignorant you are. See you loser.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears This is why the FRB doesn't take Ron Paul seriously. Because he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, on the simplest of concepts.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Okay, I usually don't insult people for not knowing something, but if I'm explaining something, and they continue with the same stupidity, it's a different story. Are you mentally retarded? Do you even know what inflation is? Inflation means prices are rising. You're essentially saying prices can only rise from one cause. You're retarded. An oil spill leads to rising prices, that is inflation. It has nothing to do with creating more money.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Which brings me to demand deficient unemployment. More proof that the market fairy doesn't exist when demand deficient unemployment occurs. A central bank has the ability to navigate through this, and the market will reach equilibrium when the difference between nominal wages and real wages disappear.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid "A central bank has the ability to navigate through this, and the market will reach equilibrium when the difference between nominal wages and real wages disappear."
My God man! You can't dictate that through Central Economic Planning. Only free market forces can produce a market equilibrium through the process of supply and demand. Everything else is artificial and cannot be sustained without the forcible transfer of wealth of a socialist system. You need to go back to school
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears I don't need to go back to school, you probably just need to go to school, period. Free market forces of supply and demand do not always produce equilibrium. Do you know what you're saying? If that were true then demand deficient unemployment wouldn't exist. If that were true the Great Depression wouldn't have occurred. If what you were saying was true, demand would've been induced when the Fed contracted the money supply before the 29 crash, and it didn't. That's fact.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Now you're going to say yeah but but uh uh the Fed uh but..no but nothing. They contracted the money supply and demand did not pick up with lower prices. That's fact and dunks 80 percent of your argument. The glut of the 1870s over produced and guess what, the money supply expanded 2.6% a year that decade. So much for supply and demand. I'm sorry but it's a fact these things happen and it comes from multiple sources, not just supply sources. It's not that simple.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid Now I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Are you talking about the 1970's or the 1870's? Don't forget that in the 1870's, the Federal Government was heavily involved in agricuture and land grants that distroyed the free markets in land and food sales. But there I go again. Involving The Government in distorting business.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Pretty funny. Quantity theory of money has been debunked before Ron Paul was born. If what you were saying was true, you're basically saying all the money supply is used in transactions, ignoring savings, which is ridiculously wrong. You're ignoring trade deficits that actually help expansions because they provide price competition beyond the current supply.. There's so many different scenarios. You really think economics is that black and white simple? Sorry, it's not.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears I was talking about the long depression, but it doesn't matter, that wasn't the point. The point was, the long depression was deflation yet the money supply expanded 2.6% per year. I'm trying to illustrate that it's not always supply side for inflation OR deflation, it's not that simple. I'll make this real easy for you. You make $10 grand one week and save it all. There, your money didn't touch prices.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid "You make $10 grand one week and save it all. There, your money didn't touch prices."
I'll make this really easy for you. You make $10K and bury it in the yard. Nothing happens to prices. But if you and everyone else gets bailed out and each receive $10K, people will start buying products they didn't need. There will be short term shortages. And prices on those items will go through the roof. To create the inflation you must first create the money to produce it.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears Wait lol I bet you think deflation means prices are low and the economy sees demand. Ever hear of cash hoarding? It's another basic concept. People save money, and the economy slows down, that's not demand dude. If there's capital flight out of a financial system, the Fed will raise rates to entice investor demand, may or may not be related. I bet you think high interest always means investors will lend. Not if they feel hoarding cash is more appealing to lending it.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@WallStwizkid If people are saving money and cash moves out of the markets, interest rates would also rise in a free market. But at least in a free market the rise in rates would be as demand dictates as opposed to central economic planning that always over compinsates both ways. They never get it right. But seriously dude, If you truely want to understand how The Fed works and why it need to be shut down, Read "Creature fron Jekyll Island" But I must go now. Good luck with your liberal crap.
mickeysears 2 months ago
@mickeysears I bet you think contracting the money supply leads to less borrowing since it's a high interest rate environment. Ever hear of a liquidity trap? Another basic concept. Central banks have never charged negative interest, and even at zero percent on a loan, you're still paying off fixed debt with money that's worth more the following year, as you lose asset value.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears I'm just talking about nominal and real prices. It's really not used for much, aside from luxury items like jewelry which is elastic to demand. I believe we have 9,000 tons of gold, which is, off the top, between $450-$500bill. When it was up $1.7k/oz. it was around $480 bill. give or take. You'd have to re-price gold at ridiculous levels which would end all applications in it, and I don't mean as a hedge source. I mean professions that actually use it.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears If it weren't for the gold standard, the Federal Reserve at the time could have extended credit and prevented the Great Depression. That's what lead to calls to end the gold standard to begin with, which shows you guys are pretty confused. Boom and bust are characteristics of fixes exchanges, like commodity money systems such as gold. This is why deflation lead to the Great Depression back then, which did not happen during the recent recession.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Do you even know what a supply glut is? Or the difference between inflation and deflation? A supply glut means markets are oversupplied, which is what happened before the depression due to enormous gains. This lead to high unemployment. If what you're saying were true, the market would've found equilibrium and demand would have been induced by dropping prices. That didn't happened, and asset values crashed. Of course a central bank is necessary.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears When markets are oversupplied, banks hold off on collecting non-performing loans, and selling devalued assets further gluts supply. The relief is temporary because eventually banks have to restrict credit because THEY HAVE NO MONEY TO LEND. These are all symptoms of a deflation spiral. If you actually knew what boom and bust cycles were, you'd know how ridiculous it would be to say gold standards and other fixed exchanges don't cause them.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Last thing I'm going to say which is what you guys need to understand. Ron Paul is a libertarian...they ALL say that. If you ask anybody currently working in finance, most support Keynesian economic models. Libertarians just take characteristics we say occur under gold standards, and say fiat systems cause it. They have nothing to back it up of course, because it's never happened. The only time inflation occurred under the gold standard was over 160 years ago- gold rush
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears If you don't want to believe me, then just use common sense. If the Federal Reserve expands the money supply, then banks can adjust interest rates and workers can enter labor contracts to balance rising prices. That's because it's anticipated inflation, which is good, because the economy is growing. Dangerous inflation is unexpected, like demand-pull inflation or cost-push. That has nothing to do with the Federal Reserves monetary policy, it's demand side causes.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
@mickeysears Ron Paul isn't stupid, but he has a warped view of economics. He was a doctor before politics, not a financial executive or economist. I can tell right away he has a textbook view of economics, which he admits himself. Libertarian theory sounds great in a textbook, but it's not that simple. Money demand has a more proportionate effect on inflation rates, not supply. Classical economic formulas such as quantity theory of money have been replaced by Keynesian models.
WallStwizkid 2 months ago
Comment removed
wooite 2 months ago
Comment removed
wooite 2 months ago
@wooite I am following them on twitter.
SakaScotii 2 months ago
Ron Paul is legendarily truthful and has a good reason for all of his opinions. RON PAUL 2012
BlackOut0189 2 months ago
This is so biased it's sickening. I thought Fox News was being rough to him, and then I see this.
TheBassoProfondo 2 months ago 2
@TheBassoProfondo Yeah, really...way to go, lamestream media...solid interviewing
smh >.<
The3rdPlateau 2 months ago
@doenstardupwidme If what you are saying is true, then its about time the congress takes 'Declaration of wars' seriously instead of treating it as just a formality, because otherwise America just turns into a war-machine that wages wars all over the world willy-nilly for absolutely baseless/silly reasons.
akram4179 2 months ago
This host was soo condescending! He makes it look like Ron Paul is talking some very crazy stuff and he is just playing along. Its shameful.
akram4179 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show